Download ✺ DOWNLOAD
Crack Rational Rose 2002 Dodge
Alfredo Perez-Bustamante appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed following his convictions for sexual abuse in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and 709.4(1)(a) (2010), and trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1). Perez-Bustamantes first three claims on appeal can be disposed of summarily. They are (1) Perez-Bustamantes due process rights were violated due to the presence of witnesses in the courtroom when the prosecutor was presenting evidence of Perez-Bustamantes gang affiliation, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate his gang affiliation, and (3) his due process rights were violated when his trial counsel failed to investigate his gang affiliation. OPINION HOLDS: Perez-Bustamante cannot establish his due process rights were violated by the presence of the witnesses; he cannot establish his trial counsel was ineffective regarding this issue. His ineffective-assistance claim regarding his counsels failure to investigate his gang affiliation fails because Perez-Bustamante has not demonstrated he has a viable claim.
Charvant Alford appeals following convictions and sentence for two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance, contending the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. He further contends his counsels failure to pursue this issue in a timely manner, when not properly preserved for appeal, denied him effective assistance of counsel. Additionally, he contends the State has failed to prove he had constructive possession over the drugs found in the unlocked car he was driving. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the defendant was not denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel in the trial of this case. We affirm the convictions and sentence.
Lisa Hans Brueck appeals from the district courts dismissal of her application for postconviction relief (PCR), contending her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we agree with the PCR courts findings, which are supported by the record, and its reasonable conclusions. Therefore, the PCR court was correct in overruling Bruecks application for postconviction relief. Trial counsels failure to object to the State s closing arguments was not ineffectiveness as trial counsel was more concerned with the strength of the State s case.
Faye Ann Mason appeals the trial court’s denial of her postconviction application for DNA testing. Mason asserts she was entitled to post-conviction DNA testing because the evidence on which her conviction was based is either too old or too adulterated, and thereby insufficient to support a rational determination of guilt. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the evidence on which Mason was convicted was sufficiently old or adulterated. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying Mason’s request for post-conviction DNA testing. VIOLENCE
James Lewis appeals from the trial court’s denial of his post-conviction DNA testing application. Lewis maintains that he was denied a fair and impartial trial and is therefore entitled to post-conviction DNA testing. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude that the evidence on which Lewis was convicted was sufficiently old or adulterated, and therefore insufficient to support a rational determination of guilt. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s request for post-conviction DNA testing. VIOLENCE